1852 election. traditionally, of course, the whigs -- it was the whigs who had appealed to native born americans, especially evangelical protestants in the north. and it was the whigs who had opposed unrestricted immigration and short naturalization periods for citizenship. you know, in some states the naturalization period was very short. five years. actually, it's interesting, in some states recent immigrants could vote without becoming citizens. so laws varied. the whig dilemma in 1852 could be described or expressed this way. are you going to continue if you're, you know, asking the question here of a whig party leader. is your political party going to continue to just kiss good-bye to all of those new voters or are you going to try to somehow integrate them to somehow

attract their support? so here's the dilemma. retain your traditional supporters but continue to turn away the growing body of new americans or, of course, here's the danger, alienate your old supporters and make a play for these immigrant groups, otherwise, they would simply continue to flock, to flood the ranks of the democratic party. in retrospect we can see that the whigs did the wrong thing, at least in terms of survival. they opted for changing their approach. they opted to make a play for this new immigrant vote. remember we talked about this a couple, a few lectures ago, we talked about what we call negative reference group voting. we talked about the cultural factors, cultural religious factors that helped us understand why people voted the way they did in the 19th century, especially in the second party system.

and you can imagine how the traditional constituency of the whig party especially in the north is going to be at the very least confused and at the worst really antagonized by this new approach. so the whigs opt for a risky strategy to go after the immigrants. in 1852, they nominate general winfield scott, predictably another war hero, another mexican war hero, to be their standard bearer. in the campaign they downplayed traditional issues. they downplayed their traditional opposition to unrestricted immigration. they downplayed some of their traditional issues like temperance prohibition laws that they had long been champions of. they tried to portray franklin pierce as anti-catholic, which

is quite a stretch. there's scott on the left and franklin pierce on the right. pierce was a brigadier general from the war with mexico and democratic, excuse me, party politician. and scott, as i said, one of the -- well, the most important general in that war. and so they try to portray pierce as anti-catholic. this proves to be a huge miscalculati miscalculation, as people are not suddenly convinced that the whig party -- immigrants are certainly not suddenly convinced the whig party is now their friend. so immigrants continue to support the democratic party and the whigs, thereby, remove the last major source of difference. remember we said difference is important in a healthy two-party system. they removed the last major source of difference between themselves and their democratic opponents. the democrats, as i said, had

nominated franklin pierce. senator from new hampshire. more recently a brigadier general during the war with mexico. the campaign was especially dirty, even by 19th century standards, and personal. a lot of what we would describe today as attack ads against the two candidates. the whigs had a lot of nasty things to say about franklin pierce. they said that he had personal problems including alcoholism. they said that he was in the -- because of his time in the mexican war, he was the victor of many a hard fought bottle. anyway, you can imagine with the slavery issue taken out of the picture, the two parties are really kind of grasping at straws trying to figure out how to appeal to the electorate, and especially now that the whigs are trying to portray themselves

as suddenly, you know, pro immigration. there seemed to be few real issues separating the major parties, and this appears to have undermined popular confidence in them. at the same time, some believed that the economic prosperity of the 1850s may also have played into the picture. at the time "the baltimore sun" commented, quote, unexampled prosperity renders it difficult to create excitement about party politics. end quote. so there's some indication that people were simply interested in economic prosperity, not that interested in voting. voting analysis for 1852 suggests that the decline and support for the whigs did not translate into support for the democrats. rather, abstentions, that is eligible voters who just decide to stay home. those climbed markedly from the previous presidential election. again, further evidence of a lack of public confidence in the

second party system. all right? if the traditional parties are not meeting your needs, aren't addressing your concerns, you're either going to stay home or look elsewhere. maybe you'll do both. so the whigs end up losing badly, predictably, in 1852, to franklin pierce and the democratic party. most significant, however, was the fact that the two major parties were almost completely silent on the political issues that most interested americans during the middle 1850s. two of them we've already talked about a fair bit, right? talked about the slavery expansion, slavery extension issue, number one. and number two we talked a little bit about immigration. so on both those questions the parties are virtually silent in 1852. that alienates a lot of voters. oh, a third issue, which often doesn't get much attention, was

probably more important on the state level, but still, it was an issue, the question of temperance. temperance laws are what was sometimes called the main law which is the prohibition law first passed in maine back in the 1840s. that also was an issue. of course it was an issue again that traditionally the whigs had championed especially in the north, but all of those issues were not mentioned, were hardly mentioned at all, during the 1852 campaign. okay. i want to go back to the question of immigration for a moment here and see how the public alienation from the two parties gives fruit to the development of a new party which some people think might have been the replacement. we know ultimately, of course, in retrospect now, the gift of hindsight, we knew it wasn't. but at the time some people thought might be the replacement

for the declining whig party. and this is the know nothing or american party. okay. so what's happening? in the 1850s we witness political realignment, the whig party is dying. the democratic party is changing. it survives but it doesn't survive unchanged. new minor parties vie for the support of americans who are disenchanted with the present political situation. for many americans something had gone terribly wrong so the minor parties that emerge in the 1850s are addressing the question, you know, what's gone wrong? what's the most serious threat to the republic and to self-government? what's the most serious threat? what is it? is it slavery's expansion? is that it? a lot of northerners would have said yes. some southerners would have said yes in terms of defending their right to expand and take their personal property anywhere.

some would say immigration. i want to turn, as i said, and look at that group of the question -- of the -- for voters, the people who are most concerned about immigration as the primary issue. all right. well, as we said, the influx of roman catholic immigrants had helped spawn groups of anti-catholic nativists. they were organized first into secret fraternal organizations, so-called know nothing lodges. you know how they're given that name. they're secret fraternal organizations so when you're asked to talk about this group that you belong to, you're supposed to say, well, i know nothing, right? and so the name sort of stuck. nativists came from lower middle class backgrounds and they feared both the political and economic consequences of the arrival of thousands of immigrants, especially catholics, through the democratic party nativists

believed that the catholics could secretly control the government. and they talked about catholics being loyal to a foreign power, to a foreign pope. in the form of the pope. plus thousands of immigrants would also, argue the nativists, lower the wages of workers in the cities and push native born americans into what one editor called -- one nativist newspaper editor called -- pushing us into the western wilds. so the political side of the issue here was probably the strongest for the nativists. that is, they were convinced that is, they were convinced that catholics had an inordinate influence within the national government, especially through their agent, the democratic party. you know, in the same way that free soil people in the north were concerned that southerners

had an inordinate influence in the national government through the agency of the democratic party. all right? so similar kinds of language was used to describe the situation, describe this threat to republican government. so like the earlier free soilers and like the later republicans, i'll talk about the origins of the republican party next time, the know nothings use tradition, small "r" republican political rhetoric to portray catholics as a threat to republican government. it was the catholic church now rather than the slave power that was undermining true republican principles. as you can see in our cartoon here, you've got -- oops. here we go. you've got the two different immigrant groups here illustrated. what are they doing? they're stealing the ballot box, right?

who's this? germans drinking their lager beer. i don't know how you guys would know that. but i'll just move on quickly. and we have, of course, the irish with their whisky who are of course always involved in rioting. so you've got them stealing the ballot box. so, again, it was how are these immigrant groups undermining the traditional political order? republican political order in america? catholicism said the nativists was a despotic faith. after all, it was organized hierarchically. it wasn't democrat, you know, like say the congregationalist church was in new england. it was organized hierarchically. you had to obey the people above you. and catholics supposedly wanted to control public education and wasn't public education the bull work of the republican system? not just the bull work of the

republican system but also a way in which the evangelical protestant faith was passed on. it may strike us as odd today, but remember public schools in those days are often run by religious societies and there's bible reading in the schools and so on. so nativists are concerned about catholics infiltrating the democratic party. the democrats were viewed as the toties of the catholics. meanwhile, the know nothings saw themselves as a kind of people's party, opposed to the corrupt traditional parties that had been perverted by the catholic interests, as they called it. the formal name of the party was the american party, and they were very successful, especially at the state level, in the mid-1850s. 1853, '54, '55 they were quite successful in -- well, even in states like massachusetts.

the know nothings won several key state elections because there was a general feeling among the voters they wanted to throw off the old party organization. in other words, in some respects the american party was a kind of no party or anti-party party, right? in that it was really saying, hey, we're different from the other two conventional traditional parties. they wanted to destroy, they said, the power of hack politicians and party wire pullers and bag men. they pushed for party nominees being named by votes in local lodges rather than, you know, in huge national nominating conventions that could be manipulated by, you know, the proverbial men in smoke-filled rooms. and there's some indication political historians have

analyzed the people who supported and participated in the american party. there's some indication that, yes, indeed, these american party, these know nothing folk were different. they came from a lower socioeconomic strata. they tended to be younger. that's interesting. most of the candidates were under 35 years old. less wealthy. less affluent than their opponents in the traditional parties. and they often held more modest occupations, such as clerks or artisans. now, prior to the rise of the republican party in the midwest, as i said, we'll be focusing mostly on that next time. prior to the rise of the republicans you could be excused for thinking in, say, 1853, '54 that this is going to be the new major party, that is, the american party is going to really be the replacement for the whig party.

until the republican party emerges and shows significant northern support, it's unclear whether or not the know nothings might actually end up being -- might actually go on to become the major political opposition to the democratic party. there was some support for the american party in the south and there was support at the top of the national politics, too. we'll see how millard fillmore later runs for the american party. there's certainly some support for nativism among whigs, given their traditional position regarding immigration and immigrants. that's not too surprising. all right. move on here. now all of that is background to what then happens in 1854 with another congressional compromise. this time we're also talking

about the issue, it keeps coming up, the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories. here, however, we're talking about the introduction of legislation to organize a portion of that vast swath of territory that had been purchased from france by president jefferson, the louisiana purchase. a large portion of that territory had never really been organized, and congress turns to address that issue in 1854. historians have long scratched their heads about, well, why did they turn to it then? couldn't they see? couldn't, you know, northern politicians in particular see how dangerous an issue this slavery extension issue was and that maybe it would be good to have a little bit of a respite from the debate? but for a variety of reasons, senator stephen a. douglas of

illinois, the giant in our portrait there, the little giant introduces legislation which comes to be called the kansas/nebraska act. and what's he up to? well, in part he wants to organize, at least some of that portion, the northern portion, central and northern portion of the louisiana purchase territory. he wants to organize that. why is he so interested in organizing it? variety of explanations here, and i think one shouldn't necessarily, you know, zero in on just one. douglas was a devoted unionist and he had been a champion of western development for some time. in his hopes to provide a kind of balance between the north/south conflict that had characterized politics for decades. so definitely douglas is a committed unionist. of course, his unionism -- his

commitment to the union -- dovetails rather nicely and neatly with his own particular political ambitions. he's very interested in getting the democratic nomination for the presidency. and he recognizes that as a northern democrat, he needs southern support but, of course, it's a tricky balancing act, right? how do i be a successful -- how can i be a successful national politician given the sectional realignment that's occurring in american politics in the mid-1850s? how do i do that? how do i pull that off? how do i pull off that magic trick? douglas, it seems, hoped the democrats could use this, that is use this issue of, you know, organizing this territory. democrats could use this as a party issue. championing the old democratic party war horse, popular sovereignty in the territories. so douglas and others sought to

facilitate the building of a trans-continental railroad line. and douglas, from the state of illinois, says i'd kind of like that line to be through illinois. it would certainly state and the best way to do that, one of the ways to ensure that is to make sure organize some of that territory. certainly, that northerly transcontinental line would greatly benefit his state and his section and douglas thought, proved to be a serious miscalculation in the long run, douglas thought i can do this with some southern support if we open up at least technically, potentially, if we open up some of that territory, that organized, previously unorganized expansion of slavery but douglas being a good

democrat wants to allow popular sovereignty to determine the status of slavery in those territories. i'm going to leave you today with a question. in order to do that, in order to organize that territory, in order to ensure that popular sovereignty determines the status of slavery in those two territories there that are kansas and nebraska, unfortunately, you have to repeal the missouri compromise. because remember the missouri compromise stipulated that slavery would not expand into new territory north of the latitude 36-30. and that is opening up a huge can of worms. and we'll turn and look at the consequences of that that are very serious indeed next time. thank you.

in may of 2011, historian richard norton smith led a ten-day bus tour from asheville, north carolina to austin, texas. the group stopped at several presidential and historic sites along the route. one of the stops was the andrew johnson homestead in greeneville, tennessee, a site owned and operated by the national parks service. johnson served as vice president under president lincoln, and succeeded him when lincoln was assassinated. here's park guide daniel luther

portraying president johnson and telling the story of how andrew johnson met abraham lincoln. >> in 1847 i went into the 30th congress for my third term representing the people of the first district, and while i was there i met an extremely tall raw-boned young man representing the prairie state of illinois, and his name was abraham lincoln. and we fell into conversation, and i introduced myself and told him that i was from northeast tennessee, and he replied that he had relatives in northeast tennessee and perhaps i knew some of them. he identified his great uncle isaac as having owned a farm up on the watauga on which his father thomas lincoln had worked as something as a hired hand in the 1790s and identified another great uncle, a gentleman by the name of mordecai, who lived in the town of greeneville, to which i replied, greeneville is my hometown, and your great

uncle mordecai, in fact, performed a wedding ceremony for me and my wife eliza in 1827 as well as mordecai and i served on the town council together in 1829, and i reassured mr. lincoln that he was in good hands in terms of politics, that his great uncle had gained a great many more votes than i had, but like many young men who came into congress at the time, we went in there with goals, and each of us had a cherished goal that we wanted to achieve in that congress. mine was the introduction of a homestead bill. for mr. lincoln it was the introduction of legislation which would have provided for compensated emancipation of slaves in the district of columbia. and like other young men who go into congress we found out it is not so easy to get your cherished goals accomplished. so we left that session of congress without those bills passed. i would serve two more terms.

mr. lincoln, that would be his only term in the house of representatives. at the beginning of the fourth term, i bought the house that you have just seen, but it is irony. those of us who lived through our late unhappy struggle often felt that we were caught up in the hands of fate, and as fate would have it, each of us, abraham lincoln and myself, were 15 years in the future able to help the other achieve that earlier cherished goal. for my part, abraham lincoln signed the homestead bill into law in 1862. in 1864, i helped mr. lincoln gain at least one state into the column of abolition, emancipation, and that is the state of tennessee that you're visiting today. you heard some of these words earlier, so i'm going to give

you just a short excerpt. in october of 1864, word got out that i as military governor was about to issue a proclamation of emancipation for the slaves in tennessee, and this created a large gathering at the state capital, and i stepped out to address them, and used some of the following words. colored people of nashville, you have all heard of the president's proclamation by which he proclaims that a large portion of the slaves in the states still in rebellion have been declared henceforth and forever free. for reasons which seemed wise to the president, this proclamation did not apply to you or to your native state. consequently, many of you were left in bondage. the fetters still galled your limbs. gradually this inequity has been passing away, but the time has come for the last vestiges of it to be removed. therefore, i, without reference to the president or any other person have a proclamation to make and standing here on the

steps of the capitol, with the past history of the state to witness, its present condition to guide, its future to encourage me, i, andrew johnson, do hereby proclaim freedom, full, broad and unconditional to every man in tennessee. those were words. some four months later we backed them up with action. the convention i called to recreate a loyal state government to the union, also enacted an amendment to the tennessee state constitution ending forever slavery in this state which became part of our constitution with a popular vote of the people on february 22nd, 1865. shortly after that, i went back to washington to take the seat as vice president. the second highest office in the gift of a free people. five weeks later the war was over, and one of its final casualties, our murdered

president, and with his death the burden he had borne for four years fell upon my shoulders. sorrowful times, discouraging times, and yet as i spoke to the gathering of the cabinet that came to my rooms at the kirkwood hotel the morning of april 15th, i told them that i had hope. i had hope that our government, having emerged from its present trials would settle on policies more consonant with the great principles of free government than it had heretofore, and i believed this nation would come together and would move forward, and i had good strong reason for my hope. i had faith in the union. i had faith, abiding faith, in the constitution, and above all else, i had faith in the people. thank you for your kind attention.

[ applause ] >> one quick question. >> sir. >> there's a bit of a controversy 150 years later over you and the part you played in the decision in the trial of the lincoln conspirators. >> yes, sir. >> and in particular the decision, the unprecedented decision on the part of the federal government to execute a woman, mary surratt. could you tell us how that came about? >> yes, sir. i will tell you, and i'm aware of the controversy, and i'm aware there are a number of different sides to it, that in my view mrs. surratt was guilty. i believe she was the person who kept the nest that hatched the egg. however, the controversy arises over this. having been convicted by military tribunal and having been sentenced to death by that same tribunal, five of the nine judges on the tribunal recommended clemency for mrs. surrat